Finnish WJC review

By Pekka Lampinen

January 22nd, 2004

In the spring of 2002 the opinions on the Finnish national junior team were clear: the team fought valiantly and didn’t lose because of personal mistakes, but the 1984-born age group didn’t have the talent to do better than reach the fourth place in the U-18 World Championships. This winter the same talent pool faced the same prejudices, which appeared all the clearer with Kari Lehtonen, Joni Pitkänen, Tuomo Ruutu and Mikko Koivu all leaving junior hockey behind permanently. The situation was made worse by the careers of Jaakko Viljanen, Joni Lappalainen and Tuukka Pulliainen not progressing as hoped for over the last eighteen months, a total of 23 points in eight games simply faded away. As much as the young players would have to liked to prove the critics wrong, the happy ending to the 2004 WJC tournament was reached with the same strengths and weaknesses as one and a half years ago.

A sheer lack of talent is a rather merciful way to lose. While the fans would tear their hair out after each wasted scoring opportunity, in the end there would only be pride and happiness for the team’s achievements, with the blame going to players who don’t even exist. This tournament was a triumph of the North American teams, among which Team Finland took its place with its style of play, attitude and the medals hanging from their necks. Despite the defeat, the semifinal against the United States will go down in history as an exemplary way to wear the lion jersey in a battle against superior talent.

Of all the skaters, only six forwards remained on the same line throughout the tournament, but for the most part the lineup looked like this:

Vuorio is a medium-sized goalie with a fair amount of standup left in his butterfly style of play. He didn’t have the talent to challenge Toivonen, so Vuorio was only counted on in the so-called unimportant game. He was shaky at first and could have caught Ukraine’s sole goal but handled the rest commendably, meeting expectations.

Taking a break from his AHL duties to join the team, Toivonenmade sure with his arrival that the long line of strong Finnishnetminders which spans a decade unbroken would continue. A goodperformance throughout the tournament set the stepping stone forthe team high enough to reach the gold, the rest was up to theskaters. The big, acrobatic butterfly goalie can only take blamefor his poor rebound control. He was very possibly the third best goaliein the tournament behind Montoya and Halak.

Defensemen:

Sami Lepistö, Jokerit (2004 opt-in)L, 6’0″/175

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

1

3

1

4

+5

2

The Rest

6

1

3

4

+5

8

Total

7

4

4

8

+10

10

The best defenseman in the tournament. Lepistö has takenenormous steps in his development since last season and was theteam’s most valuable player together with Toivonen and Filppula.Great opening passes and quarterbacking, excellent if not thatexplosive skating and a top quality one-timer presented a threatto the opposing team not that much short of Joni Pitkänen’sabilities. The 6’0” defenseman laid hits in his own end and keptmistakes to a minimum.

Janne Jalasvaara, Blues (undrafted)L, 6’0″/195

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

1

1

0

1

+2

0

The Rest

6

0

1

1

+2

6

Total

7

1

1

2

+4

6

A WJC veteran and an assistant captain, Jalasvaara was thebiggest disappointment in the defense corps as he played worsethan last year. He laid big hits eagerly despite his smallish stature, sometimes takinghimself out of position. All his three penalties were verydangerous to the team. Jalasvaara never had the kind of offensiveabilities the team would have needed and he couldn’t even play athis normal level with the puck. Despite all this, he was not adecisive liability but a decent two-way defenseman.

Mikko Kalteva, Jokerit (drafted by COL, 107th overall)L, 6’3″/200

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

1

0

1

1

+5

0

The Rest

6

0

0

0

-1

0

Total

7

0

1

1

+4

0

Kalteva’s slowness was an issue before the tournament, but theteam’s biggest defenseman turned out to be most reliable. He washardly ever caught out of position and had no more trouble thanany defenseman is due. Also known for his decent offensiveskills, his puckhandling did look uneasy and he couldn’t produce,so he focused even more on defending as the tournamentprogressed. In overall, only one or two Finnish defensemen canreach a defensive performance this solid each year.

Anssi Salmela, Tappara (undrafted)L, 6’0″/188

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

1

1

1

2

+4

0

The Rest

6

0

1

1

-4

6

Total

7

1

2

3

even

6

After an absolutely horrendous start in the game againstCanada, Salmela quickly picked up his game not to plunge the teaminto distress as certain defensemen did last year. An offensive,non-physical defenseman by nature, he played powerplay throughoutthe tournament demonstrating his capable slapshot. Unfortunately,he couldn’t improve the unit all that much and ended up with onlypassable production. Salmela kept his mistakes at a leveltolerable enough to justify his spot on the team, but he wasstill one of the worse defensemen.

Ville Varakas, HIFK (undrafted)L, 6’0/195

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

1

0

2

2

+3

2

The Rest

6

0

2

2

even

0

Total

7

0

4

4

+3

2

Varakas started the tournament as a depth defenseman and eventhough all six defensemen got their fair share of icetime afterKorpikari’s injury, that was as far as the smallish physicaldefenseman’s talent would take him. The team’s second mostproductive blueliner got his points by participating in theoffense, but his skills set limits to that. He was too carelesswith the puck and directly responsible for the goal that sank theteam in the semifinals. In the defense he skated hard, took the body andblocked shots drawing comparisons to Jyri Marttinen’s performancetwo years ago, but in overall Varakas didn’t compare to him.

Kevin Kantee, Jokerit (drafted by CHI, 188th overall 2002)L, 6’2″/192

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

1

0

1

1

even

0

The Rest

6

0

0

0

even

4

Total

7

0

1

1

even

4

One of the defensemen who could really be counted on to makeit through one shift after another, Kantee showed good all-aroundskills. His physical play, skating, hockey sense and puckhandlingwere all above average, making him a most valuable part of theteam. Certain flashiness would have been needed on powerplay,though.

Oskari Korpikari, Kärpät (drafted by MTL, 217th overall)L, 6’2″/200

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

1

0

0

0

+1

0

The Rest

2

0

0

0

-3

2

Total

3

0

0

0

-2

2

A member of the solid core with Lepistö, Kalteva and Kantee,Korpikari did everything he could to help the goalie with his strength and good positioning whenever hewas on the ice. His shoulder injury in the game against Ukrainecut his tournament short, but fortunately his loss didn’t proveas devastating to the team as it could have.

A huge disappointment. Bergenheim battled flu right prior tothe tournament and never quite got in shape. Although his greatspeed allowed him to draw penalties and fly right to the crease,it was all squandered by his abysmal finishing. Multiplebreakaways and at least a dozen top quality scoring opportunitieslost is a total matched by no one in the recent Finnish WJChistory. A point per game plus something extra against Ukrainewould have been a fair expectation, but one assist in six gamesis something from a completely different reality. Withcommendable finishing Bergenheim alone could have lifted Finlandto the final. An assistant captain this year, his third straightbronze makes him one of only three active Finnish players (theothers being Kari Lehtonen and Tuomo Ruutu) with three WJCmedals.

A tournament all-star forward, Filppula was all that and theteam’s savior. With exceptional stickhandling and the hockeysense to match, he proved to be a playmaker equaled only by thebest. Flawless skating helped him be the team’s best finisher aswell. Last year he was still physically unfit for the WJC, butnow he seemed surprisingly strong in the corners, holdingopponents bigger than him at bay. Although counterattacks oftentook the first line by surprise, Filppula himself played a gooddefensive game. If Bergenheim had played at his normal level,Filppula’s numbers would have seen considerable improvementstill.

Piispanen earned a spot in the squad thanks to his greatchemistry with Petrell and Tukonen last fall. As expected, thefourth line was not an answer to the team’s scoring problems andit was soon dismantled. Piispanen, all inches and no pounds, remained in a small role asplanned. He couldn’t create much offense – or anything clearlyvisible, for that matter. The experience was still invaluable forPiispanen, who is at this point the best option to center thefirst line next year thanks to his raw talent and stickhandling.

Tommi Oksa, Jokerit (undrafted)R, 5’11″/183

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

1

0

1

1

+2

2

The Rest

6

1

0

1

-2

0

Total

7

1

1

2

even

2

Oksa is a typical Finnish junior player, a swift skater with agreat work ethic but no real talent. He can handle the puck butwhen the time comes for the finishing touch, his hands freeze. Inthe opening game against Canada he couldn’t even hold on to thepuck but improved his game soon like the rest of the team. Oksaassumed the role of an agitator, seeking trouble more often thannecessary. Still, he is not ruthless enough to make a career outof it. In the bronze game he finally managed to overcome hisproblems in the offense. It was as if the entire team had scoredthat game-winning goal.

Jyri Junnila, Kärpät (undrafted)R, 5’8″/175

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

1

0

0

0

+1

0

The Rest

6

1

0

1

even

0

Total

7

1

0

1

+1

0

The smallest forward on the team with the skills to match the size started the tournament as thethirteenth forward. Despite that Junnila was Finland’s bestplayer against Switzerland, he soon found himself on the benchagain. He could be effective against certain teams when he could utilize his talent, but thebigger and stronger opponents would take him out with littleeffort.

Lennart Petrell, HIFK (undrafted)R, 6’3″/200

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

0

0

0

0

even

0

The Rest

5

0

0

0

-1

27

Total

5

0

0

0

-1

27

The most undisciplined player on the team, Petrell causedconfusion among both friends and foes. He laid a lot of hits, oneof which was ugly enough to take both Michal Barinka and himselfout for two games. He created a fair number of scoringopportunities on the fourth line but was also responsible for toomany and too serious turnovers. He is a fairly good skater for a 6’3″ player but lacks fluency and has trouble keeping up with a fast transition game. The coaching staff surely knewwhat to expect as they picked him on the team, but they may havebeen better off without him. What Petrell provided were alreadysome of the stronger aspects of the team.

Joni Töykkälä, Blues (undrafted)L, 6’0″/175

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

1

0

2

2

+4

0

The Rest

6

2

0

2

+2

2

Total

7

2

2

4

+6

2

Töykkälä had the honor to be the captain of the team justlike when the age group was still fighting for the U-18 WorldChampionship even though he doesn’t have the talent to be one ofthe key players. His numbers do look rather good with thepriceless opening goals against the Czech Republic and Russia aswell as the team’s second best plus/minus rating to boot. Still,the main impression the smallish and very fast winger gave wasthat all he could do in the offense was to handle the puck –together with tenacity, those qualities do make him what acaptain is supposed to be, a typical member of the team.Töykkälä ruined his finest hour as he wasted the perfectopportunity to tie the game against the United States by blindlychallenging Montoya alone on a 2-on-0 breakaway.

Teemu Nurmi, Tappara (undrafted)R, 6’1″/192

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

1

1

1

2

+2

0

The Rest

6

1

1

2

-1

0

Total

7

2

2

4

+1

0

One of the few pleasant surprises among the forwards, Nurmidid what he could with third and fourth line icetime. His averagequalities probably cost him a chance to be picked in last year’sentry draft, but now the complete package proved effective. Hehas yet to mold his game to suit his abilities and his 6’1″ frame at a level thishigh. Next year we may see him looking more like what he will oneday become, probably with a Christmas card from the team thatwill draft him in his pocket.

Immonen failed to put his playmaking abilities to good use,leaving his wingers Töykkälä and Marjamäki to create theirown scoring opportunities most of the time. In his defense,Immonen’s performance wasn’t particularly disappointing, betterfinishing would have left him with a good number of assists.Domination against Ukraine contrary to stronger opponentsrevealed the problems in his game: The lack of quickness in legs,hands and mind alike. He was also perhaps the least tenaciousforward on the team. Despite all that, his importance in theoffense was never in question thanks to his great skill. Immonenshould also make better use of his 195 pounds.

Lauri Tukonen, Blues (2004 eligible)R, 6’2″/197

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

1

1

1

2

+2

0

The Rest

6

1

0

1

-2

2

Total

7

2

1

3

even

2

The youngest Finnish skater in the WJC since over a decade,Tukonen never had a clear role planned for him. “Let’s justrelease him and see what happens” may have been theintention as Tukonen is certainly the right player for that. Hisskating, stickhandling and strength made in intriguingcombination used both in a checking role and on powerplay.Surprisingly, he cut down on the number of hits compared to clubteam performances, perhaps to focus more on the puck, and that hedid, to the extent that he would rarely deal a good pass as hecharged for the net with his head down. More experience androutine should help with that. With admirable strength for aplayer of his age, he dominated in the corners against mostdefensemen.

Petri Kontiola, Tappara (undrafted)R, 6’0″/188

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

1

1

0

1

+3

2

The Rest

6

0

1

1

-2

0

Total

7

1

1

2

+1

2

Kontiola was one of the lesser known players on the team butstill not a surprise pick. He turned out to be a most reliabletwo-way center over last fall. Although at times it seemed thathis attempts in the offense didn’t make the least bit of sense,he was always there to lead the line’s defense, taking good careof his territory. His talent isn’t up for the challenge ofproduction at this level, he would often just blindly deke hisway past one opponent and lose the puck to the second. A draftpick may remain but a wish for him as his upside resembles thatof players who struggle to make the big league.

Petteri Nokelainen, SaiPa (2004 eligible)R, 6’1″/188

Against

GP

G

A

P

±

PIM

Ukraine

1

0

0

0

+2

0

The Rest

6

1

0

1

even

0

Total

7

1

0

1

+2

0

At first the two caged youngsters Tukonen and Nokelainenlooked completely alike, two fast and strong wingers wreakinghavoc everywhere. Closer examination revealed that,oversimplified, Tukonen was the one with the offense andNokelainen with the defense. Nokelainen had the chance to playwith Filppula and Bergenheim, which offered him more offensiveopportunities than expected. It was certainly not all for thegood of the rookie, as his surprisingly mature defensive game andeffective grinding helped the two older stars a lot. He did losehis powerplay time to Tukonen, but soon became the team’sgo-to-guy when the penalty box was manned by a teammate. His puck skills were still too undeveloped to be effective at this level, but once he is no longer handicapped by his age, the numbers will be there.

The team’s Canadian import player has refined his game intothe mold of a maple leaf. Marjamäki was an instant fan favoritewith his big hits and straightforward offensive game. A lot ofthe blame for his average numbers go to his linemates, butMarjamäki himself was also a disappointing finisher, althoughless so than most of the team. Still, he hit the net when itcounted, saving the team in the quarterfinal by tying the gametwice against Russia. He may be the team’s best forward nextyear.